Madhya Pradesh High Court | Article 21 Right to Education Cannot Be Curtailed | ‘Extraordinary’ 11-Year-Old Allowed Provisional Class IX Admission Despite NEP Age Norms
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Vishal Mishra, directed that provisional admission be granted to a student in Class IX despite his age falling short of the prescribed limit under the National Education Policy, 2020. The Court ordered that the student’s activities be monitored by the school principal, with further evaluation by a Medical Board and eventual consideration by the Chairman of the Central Board of Secondary Education. The judgment clarified that Clause 4.1 of the policy is not mandatory in nature and held that the right to education cannot be curtailed by imposing age restrictions when a student demonstrates exceptional qualities. The petition was allowed with specific directions to the respondents and the concerned institution.
The matter arose when a student, represented through his mother, challenged the rejection of his request for registration in Class IX. The rejection was made by the concerned authorities on the ground that the student was underage according to the norms derived from Clause 4.1 of the National Education Policy, 2020. The petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as 19 March 2014. He had studied from Class I to Class VIII at the same institution and had consistently secured excellent marks. The institution declined to register him in Class IX due to his age, prompting his mother to submit multiple representations to the relevant authorities, including respondents identified in the proceedings. These representations were rejected.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the student was a meritorious candidate, and reliance was placed on similar cases adjudicated by other High Courts, including decisions from the Patna High Court and Himachal Pradesh High Court. An affidavit was filed by the mother, and an intelligence quotient report prepared by professionals was also submitted, reflecting the student’s high intelligence and extraordinary learning capabilities.
In contrast, the respondents, including the Central Board of Secondary Education, submitted that Clause 4.1 of the National Education Policy, 2020 prescribes the age structure aligned to developmental stages, and since the student did not fall within the stipulated age range for Class IX, admission could not be granted. The CBSE further referred to its examination bye-laws, particularly Clause 6.1 (iii), which stipulates that eligibility for admission depends upon satisfying the age requirements determined by the State or Union Territory Government where the school is located. The respondents stated that no provision existed for age relaxation unless the policy itself was challenged, and therefore the petition lacked merit.
The Court considered submissions from both sides. Documentary evidence annexed to the petition, including mark sheets and the psychiatrist’s report, was reviewed. The psychiatrist’s report detailed the student’s multiple intelligences, higher-than-average IQ, creative quotient, and adversity quotient, and noted his balanced use of both hemispheres of the brain. The report identified the student’s learning style as visual, auditory, and kinesthetic with strong self-cognitive methods.
The respondents relied upon rules and the national education policy to oppose relaxation of age criteria. They cited earlier orders where the courts directed petitioners to approach CBSE authorities, but ultimately upheld the policy framework when challenges arose.
The institution involved did not file a separate reply but adopted the CBSE’s stance, asserting compliance with the prescribed regulations.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s date of birth was 19 March 2014 and that he had passed Class VIII with flying colours during the academic session 2023–24. It recorded that the institution had earlier permitted his admission and progression through successive classes without objection under Clause 4.1, and that his progression had continued until he sought admission to Class IX.
The judgment stated: “Bare reading of Clause 4.1 does not provide that the said clause of the policy is mandatory. However, the said clause is inserted in the interest of the student, looking to the developmental needs and interests of the student at large. However, it does not speak out regarding the extraordinary student who are having some exceptional qualities and capabilities. They cannot be simply debarred on the basis of Clause 4.1 of the National Education Policy, 2020.”
The Court also noted precedents from other High Courts. Referring to the Patna High Court judgment in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17241/2023, it stated: “Considering the aforesaid discussions and the result shown by the petitioner No.1, in my considered opinion, the petitioners may file a representation before the Chairman of the C.B.S.E. along with all the relevant papers/results of the petitioner No.1 within a period of twenty days from today and if such a representation is filed, the Chairman of C.B.S.E. is directed to consider the same.”
Similarly, it discussed the Himachal Pradesh High Court decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 8062/2021, concerning a minor named Kashvi. It recorded: “We are deeply conscious of the situation that a child of such tender age, as Kashvi is, might face a lot of peer pressure, emotional and physical stress in future in case she is permitted to undertake class 8 examination at this stage. There would be many such eventualities which Kashvi may face in future on account of her accelerated jumps at a tender age of 8 years which she and her parents might not even visualize today. However, we are also not unmindful of the fact that Kashvi may be a genius and intellectually superior child as is claimed in the petition. Therefore, taking stock of every material aspect, we do not deem it appropriate to permit her to straightaway undertake final examination of class 8.”
The Madhya Pradesh High Court distinguished the facts but acknowledged that courts had previously taken into account exceptional cases involving children with extraordinary capabilities.
Further, reference was made to the Madras High Court’s discussion in the matter concerning National Testing Agency v. Minor SP. Shree Harini, where the Court stated contradictions between CBSE’s age norms and those under the Medical Council of India regulations. The Madhya Pradesh High Court noted the principle that “Right to Education cannot be curtailed by imposing a condition regarding age limit. There are several instances which point out that if an underage child can perform exceptionally well and his understanding level is on a higher side, then the exceptional qualities of such student/candidates cannot be suppressed or overlooked merely on the ground of he being underage.”
The Court concluded that Clause 4.1 of the National Education Policy, 2020 was directory and not mandatory. It recorded that the provision was intended to align pedagogical structures with developmental needs but did not specifically provide for students of extraordinary merit.
The Court directed that the writ petition be allowed. It ordered provisional admission of the petitioner to Class IX in the concerned institution. The Court stated: “Under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this writ petition with a direction to the respondents/CBSE Board as well as the respondent No.6/Institution to provide provisional admission in Class 9 in the respondent No.6/Institution.”
The Court further directed that the petitioner’s daily activities be monitored by the school principal. It also mandated that the petitioner file a representation before the Chairman of the CBSE, accompanied by relevant reports and documents, within fifteen days of receiving the certified copy of the order. The Chairman was directed to take a final decision on the petitioner’s admission considering his performance.
The Court ordered the petitioner to appear before a Medical Board consisting of three experts, including a psychiatrist and a counsellor, for evaluation of his IQ. The Board was to submit its report to the school principal, who in turn would forward it to the CBSE Chairman for consideration during the decision-making process.
The petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Shri Hitendra Kumar Golhani – Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Arnav Tiwari – Panel Lawyer, Shri Rajesh Maindiretta – Advocate, Shri Aditya Awasthi – Advocate
Case Title: Aarav Singh v. Union of India and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-JBP:39576
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 13186 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vishal Mishra
